Changes for page Data Model (From Specification Chat)

Last modified by Robert Schaub on 2025/12/24 20:35

From 4.1 to 3.1 From 7.1 to 6.3

From version 6.3

edited by Robert Schaub
on 2025/11/27 12:36

Change comment: Renamed back-links.

To version 4.1

edited by Robert Schaub
on 2025/11/27 12:11

Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Raw
Rendered

Summary

Page properties (1 modified, 0 added, 0 removed)

Details

Page properties

Content

@@ -1,7 +1,171 @@
--(((
++== 1. Overall analysis & review of the data model ==
++=== 1.1 Strengths of the current design ===
++
++* (((
++**Identity vs. version pattern**
++Using base entities plus version entities (CLAIM + CLAIM_VERSION, SCENARIO + SCENARIO_VERSION, etc.) is exactly how modern knowledge systems handle:
++
++* auditability
++* time evolution
++* re-evaluation triggers
++* federation and partial replication
  )))
++* (((
++**Scenario-centric reasoning**
++Separating //Claim// (what people argue about) from //Scenario// (interpretive frame) is very aligned with “truth landscape” style systems:
++* Scenarios explain //why people disagree//.
++* Verdicts are tied to specific scenario versions → avoids mixing incompatible assumptions.
++)))
++* **Evidence and verdicts as first-class entities**
++Evidence is explicit, linked to scenarios, and verdicts are per scenario. This matches good practice from fact-checking, scientific assessment panels, and trust graphs.
++* (((
++**Cluster level (CLAIM_CLUSTER)**
++Grouping related claims avoids duplication and lets you:
++
++* reuse scenarios across paraphrases
++* share embeddings / semantic search
++* keep the system scalable as the corpus grows.
++)))
++* (((
++**Explicit review layer (REVIEW_ACTION, roles, etc.)**
++Separating “data” from “who reviewed what” keeps the model clean, and is exactly what you want for:
++
++* governance
++* permissions
++* audit trails
++* future trust scoring per user / role.
++)))
++
++----
++
++=== 1.2 Design decisions I’m locking in (based on our discussions) ===
++
++To make the model consistent and “state-of-the-art”, I will assume the following as //current intended design//:
++
++1. (((
++**Claims vs Scenarios**
++
++* CLAIM is the stable identity for “what people argue about”.
++* CLAIM_VERSION are individual phrasings / formulations / metadata.
++* (((
++SCENARIO belongs to a **CLAIM**, not to a specific CLAIM_VERSION.
++Rationale:
++
++* Many different phrasings share the //same// scenario.
++* You avoid duplicating scenarios per wording.
++)))
++* SCENARIO_VERSION holds detailed definitions, assumptions, boundaries, etc.
++)))
++1. (((
++**Version-specific reasoning**
++
++* **Verdicts** are always attached to SCENARIO_VERSION (not base SCENARIO).
++* **Evidence links** are between SCENARIO_VERSION and EVIDENCE_VERSION.
++→ This is what we agreed when we said //“SCENARIO_EVIDENCE_LINK should link the respective versions instead”//.
++)))
++1. (((
++**Clusters**
++
++* CLAIM_CLUSTER groups Claims (semantically close claims).
++* It is visible in **both diagrams** (Core Data Model and Data Use).
++)))
++1. (((
++**Review vs data**
++
++* (((
++All review happens **on versioned entities**:
++
++* CLAIM_VERSION
++* SCENARIO_VERSION
++* EVIDENCE_VERSION
++* SCENARIO_EVIDENCE_LINK_VERSION
++* VERDICT_VERSION
++)))
++* REVIEW_ACTION is the generic log of //who// did //what// on //which version//.
++)))
++1. (((
++**Users & roles**
++
++* USER has an attribute (or a linked entity) that distinguishes **technical users** from normal accounts.
++* We //keep// TECHNICAL_USER as a specialisation of USER (strictly technical accounts).
++* All human & technical accounts can hold roles via USER_ROLE_MEMBERSHIP.
++* (((
++Roles include:
++
++* READER
++* CONTRIBUTOR
++* TRUSTED_CONTRIBUTOR
++* REVIEWER
++* MODERATOR
++* SYSTEM_ADMIN / MAINTAINER
++* FEDERATION_OPERATOR
++* FEDERATION_ADMIN
++(all present in the Data Use ERD, but as rows of ROLE rather than separate entities).
++)))
++)))
++
++----
++
++=== 1.3 Gaps / potential problems ===
++
++These are the main issues & missing areas I see:
++
++1. (((
++**Versioning text in chapter 5 is currently too thin (‘…’ placeholders)**
++
++* (((
++The spec does not yet //verbally// spell out:
++
++* the identity vs version pattern, systematically
++* how re-evaluation triggers are derived from version changes
++* how this aligns with federation (which versions are replicated where).
++)))
++)))
++1. (((
++**No explicit “provenance granularity” in the model**
++
++* (((
++EVIDENCE is a single entity. For more advanced use cases, you may later want:
++
++* EVIDENCE_SOURCE (the whole article/report/video)
++* EVIDENCE_FRAGMENT (specific paragraph/clip with its own reliability, quote, etc.)
++)))
++* For now, I’ll keep EVIDENCE/EVIDENCE_VERSION as is, but I’ll mention this as a possible extension.
++)))
++1. (((
++**Review target polymorphism**
++
++* (((
++REVIEW_ACTION can apply to multiple entity types. In the diagram this shows as multiple relationships:
++
++* CLAIM_VERSION → REVIEW_ACTION
++* SCENARIO_VERSION → REVIEW_ACTION
++* etc.
++)))
++* A more “pure” relational modeling would use a generic “subjectType + subjectId” or an intermediate “REVIEW_TARGET” table.
++* For readability, I’ll keep the simpler multi-edge representation and mention the polymorphism in text.
++)))
++1. (((
++**Federation details missing from core ERD**
++
++* There is no explicit FEDERATION_NODE / REPLICATION_LOG in the Data Model chapter.
++* This is ok for “core logical data model”, but I’ll add a short note that federation metadata is handled in the Federation chapter and via additional entities.
++)))
++1. (((
++**Automation / AKEL artifacts left implicit**
++
++* (((
++The Data Model chapter currently doesn’t describe:
++
++* AKEL task queues
++* extraction runs
++* model versions
++)))
++* That’s fine for now; I’ll just clarify that those belong to a “Processing / AKEL” submodel, not the core logical data model.
++)))
++
  = 5. Data Model =
  The FactHarbor data model centers on four fully versioned, immutable entities:
@@ -61,13 +61,6 @@
  The convention is that fields ending in {{code}}Id{{/code}} are primary keys,
  and fields with {{code}}...IdFk{{/code}} are foreign keys.
--{{comment}} Core Data Model ERD (Mermaid, from /Specification/Diagrams/Data Model) {{/comment}}
--{{include document="FactHarbor.Playground.Core Data Model ERD Page (from Specification chat).WebHome" reference="FactHarbor.Playground.data.Core Data Model ERD Page (from Specification chat).WebHome"/}}
--
--= Core Data Model ERD (Versioned) =
--
--This diagram shows the full core data model with all versioned entities.
--
  {{mermaid}}
  erDiagram
      CLAIM_CLUSTER {
@@ -158,14 +158,9 @@
      SCENARIO ||--o{ VERDICT : assessed
      VERDICT ||--o{ VERDICT_VERSION : versions
++
  {{/mermaid}}
--{{info}}
--All key entities are explicitly versioned here (…VERSION tables).
--This reflects the versioning requirements in the textual Data Model chapter.
--{{/info}}
--
--
  **Important points:**
  * Scenarios and Evidence are **linked via their versions**
@@ -186,14 +186,6 @@
  * Roles and role assignments
  * Review actions on versioned entities
--{{comment}} Data Use ERD (Mermaid, from /Specification/Diagrams/Data Use ERD) {{/comment}}
--{{include document="FactHarbor.Playground.Data Use ERD Page (from Specification chat).WebHome" reference="FactHarbor.Playground.data.Data Use ERD Page (from Specification chat).WebHome"/}}
--
--= Data Use ERD (Roles, Review & Versioned Entities) =
--
--This diagram shows how users, roles, and review actions relate to the
--versioned core entities.
--
  {{mermaid}}
  erDiagram
      %% Core clusters shown for context
@@ -334,16 +334,9 @@
      REVIEW_ACTION }o--|| SCENARIO_VERSION : reviews
      REVIEW_ACTION }o--|| EVIDENCE_VERSION : reviews
      REVIEW_ACTION }o--|| VERDICT_VERSION : reviews
++
  {{/mermaid}}
--{{info}}
--This diagram focuses on *who* uses and reviews *which* versioned entities.
--USER is the base type; TECHNICAL_USER and CONTRIBUTING_USER are specializations.
--Other roles (REVIEWER, EXPERT, TRUSTED_CONTRIBUTOR, FEDERATION_ADMIN, FEDERATION_NODE)
--are modelled as specializations or technical subtypes.
--{{/info}}
--
--
  Notes:
  * Most roles (READER, CONTRIBUTOR, TRUSTED_CONTRIBUTOR, REVIEWER, MODERATOR,
@@ -410,173 +410,3 @@
  Federation-specific entities (such as {{code}}FEDERATION_NODE{{/code}},
  replication logs, and trust rules) are described in the Federation &
  Decentralization chapter and build on top of the core data model defined here.
--
------
--
--== 1. Overall analysis & review of the data model ==
--
--=== 1.1 Strengths of the current design ===
--
--* (((
--**Identity vs. version pattern**
--Using base entities plus version entities (CLAIM + CLAIM_VERSION, SCENARIO + SCENARIO_VERSION, etc.) is exactly how modern knowledge systems handle:
--
--* auditability
--* time evolution
--* re-evaluation triggers
--* federation and partial replication
--)))
--* (((
--**Scenario-centric reasoning**
--Separating //Claim// (what people argue about) from //Scenario// (interpretive frame) is very aligned with “truth landscape” style systems:
--
--* Scenarios explain //why people disagree//.
--* Verdicts are tied to specific scenario versions → avoids mixing incompatible assumptions.
--)))
--* **Evidence and verdicts as first-class entities**
--Evidence is explicit, linked to scenarios, and verdicts are per scenario. This matches good practice from fact-checking, scientific assessment panels, and trust graphs.
--* (((
--**Cluster level (CLAIM_CLUSTER)**
--Grouping related claims avoids duplication and lets you:
--
--* reuse scenarios across paraphrases
--* share embeddings / semantic search
--* keep the system scalable as the corpus grows.
--)))
--* (((
--**Explicit review layer (REVIEW_ACTION, roles, etc.)**
--Separating “data” from “who reviewed what” keeps the model clean, and is exactly what you want for:
--
--* governance
--* permissions
--* audit trails
--* future trust scoring per user / role.
--)))
--
------
--
--=== 1.2 Design decisions I’m locking in (based on our discussions) ===
--
--To make the model consistent and “state-of-the-art”, I will assume the following as //current intended design//:
--
--1. (((
--**Claims vs Scenarios**
--
--* CLAIM is the stable identity for “what people argue about”.
--* CLAIM_VERSION are individual phrasings / formulations / metadata.
--* (((
--SCENARIO belongs to a **CLAIM**, not to a specific CLAIM_VERSION.
--Rationale:
--
--* Many different phrasings share the //same// scenario.
--* You avoid duplicating scenarios per wording.
--)))
--* SCENARIO_VERSION holds detailed definitions, assumptions, boundaries, etc.
--)))
--1. (((
--**Version-specific reasoning**
--
--* **Verdicts** are always attached to SCENARIO_VERSION (not base SCENARIO).
--* **Evidence links** are between SCENARIO_VERSION and EVIDENCE_VERSION.
--→ This is what we agreed when we said //“SCENARIO_EVIDENCE_LINK should link the respective versions instead”//.
--)))
--1. (((
--**Clusters**
--
--* CLAIM_CLUSTER groups Claims (semantically close claims).
--* It is visible in **both diagrams** (Core Data Model and Data Use).
--)))
--1. (((
--**Review vs data**
--
--* (((
--All review happens **on versioned entities**:
--
--* CLAIM_VERSION
--* SCENARIO_VERSION
--* EVIDENCE_VERSION
--* SCENARIO_EVIDENCE_LINK_VERSION
--* VERDICT_VERSION
--)))
--* REVIEW_ACTION is the generic log of //who// did //what// on //which version//.
--)))
--1. (((
--**Users & roles**
--
--* USER has an attribute (or a linked entity) that distinguishes **technical users** from normal accounts.
--* We //keep// TECHNICAL_USER as a specialisation of USER (strictly technical accounts).
--* All human & technical accounts can hold roles via USER_ROLE_MEMBERSHIP.
--* (((
--Roles include:
--
--* READER
--* CONTRIBUTOR
--* TRUSTED_CONTRIBUTOR
--* REVIEWER
--* MODERATOR
--* SYSTEM_ADMIN / MAINTAINER
--* FEDERATION_OPERATOR
--* FEDERATION_ADMIN
--(all present in the Data Use ERD, but as rows of ROLE rather than separate entities).
--)))
--)))
--
------
--
--=== 1.3 Gaps / potential problems ===
--
--These are the main issues & missing areas I see:
--
--1. (((
--**Versioning text in chapter 5 is currently too thin (‘…’ placeholders)**
--
--* (((
--The spec does not yet //verbally// spell out:
--
--* the identity vs version pattern, systematically
--* how re-evaluation triggers are derived from version changes
--* how this aligns with federation (which versions are replicated where).
--)))
--)))
--1. (((
--**No explicit “provenance granularity” in the model**
--
--* (((
--EVIDENCE is a single entity. For more advanced use cases, you may later want:
--
--* EVIDENCE_SOURCE (the whole article/report/video)
--* EVIDENCE_FRAGMENT (specific paragraph/clip with its own reliability, quote, etc.)
--)))
--* For now, I’ll keep EVIDENCE/EVIDENCE_VERSION as is, but I’ll mention this as a possible extension.
--)))
--1. (((
--**Review target polymorphism**
--
--* (((
--REVIEW_ACTION can apply to multiple entity types. In the diagram this shows as multiple relationships:
--
--* CLAIM_VERSION → REVIEW_ACTION
--* SCENARIO_VERSION → REVIEW_ACTION
--* etc.
--)))
--* A more “pure” relational modeling would use a generic “subjectType + subjectId” or an intermediate “REVIEW_TARGET” table.
--* For readability, I’ll keep the simpler multi-edge representation and mention the polymorphism in text.
--)))
--1. (((
--**Federation details missing from core ERD**
--
--* There is no explicit FEDERATION_NODE / REPLICATION_LOG in the Data Model chapter.
--* This is ok for “core logical data model”, but I’ll add a short note that federation metadata is handled in the Federation chapter and via additional entities.
--)))
--1. (((
--**Automation / AKEL artifacts left implicit**
--
--* (((
--The Data Model chapter currently doesn’t describe:
--
--* AKEL task queues
--* extraction runs
--* model versions
--)))
--* That’s fine for now; I’ll just clarify that those belong to a “Processing / AKEL” submodel, not the core logical data model.
--)))

Changes for page Data Model (From Specification Chat)

Summary

Details

Applications

Navigation

Need help?